Delhi Court March 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Associated Strips Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC404
1. Since identical issues are raised in these appeals and common arguments were addressed by both sides, we propose to dispose of the appeals under a common order.Mis. Associated Strips Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi 2. The above appeal is at the instance of the assessee challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. 267-CE/DLH/2001, dated 12-3-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Original authority has taken the view that the property in the goods had passed in the case of the transactions involving the assessee at the buyers premises and not at the factory gate and, therefore the element of freight and transit insurance are to be included in the normal value as contemplated under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act; 1944. The demand of differential duty as per the show cause notice was confirmed by its order dated 2-2-2000. Appeal therefrom was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). According to the Commissioner (Appeals), appellant's case has to be decided in the ...
East West Rescue (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)81ITD160(Delhi)
1. The appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), dt 29th Dec., 1998, pertaining to asst. yr. 1994-95. The first ground of appeal relates to deduction under Section 80-O of the Act.2. The assessee-company provides professional services in the field of medicines. It is headed by Dr. N.P.S. Chawla and Dr. (Miss) Devjit Kinberlay Chawla, as directors. The assessee-company got the necessary expertise in the matter of providing emergency medical assistance to any person anywhere in India on call. It has on its own panel several qualified doctors who always remain on call, provide necessary medical services wherever required and give professional information to foreign insurers. It is patronised by almost all the insurance companies in the world and some important select embassies of foreign countries, though no formal agreement exist in some of the cases. After providing required treatment they are also provided qualified doctor to escort them back to their dest...
Laubro Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)587; 2002(2)ARBLR28(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT432; 2002(62)DRJ500
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Through this suit, award dated 15th December, 1996 is being sought made rule of the court. On being noticed, respondent has assailed the award by filing objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by way of I.A. 6003/1996. 2. The main thrust of the objections is with regard to claim no.1 and claim no.5. Claim no.1 is for paymentof items of furniture supplied and taken over by CPS Mhow. A contact was awarded by respondent to the petitioner for manufacture and supply of furniture amounting to Rs. 15,54,970/-. The date of completion of supply was 5.4.1987 but at the request of petitioner, the same was extended to 26.8.1987. Despite extension, the petitioner failed to make complete supplies and it is alleged that even the material supplied was not in accordance with specifications. Besides oral requests,notice was also sent to the petitioner for rectifying the defects and completing the balance supply but the petitioner failed to take any action for ...
Gyan Prakash Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)809; 97(2002)DLT205
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The doctrine of deemed fictions in any field of activity is pressed into service by way of statutory provisions to inject speed in decision making process and is the fiction of law by which mere lapse of time leads to sanction by operation of law which is exactly identical to actual legal sanction. The obvious object is to eliminate delay, deep seated civic apathy and keep the authorities on tenter-hooks for expediting the process and keep them awake before they go into soporific slumber. That is why it is well established that all deemed fictions must be given full and exonerable effect and the same force as the statutory provisions, otherwise it would lead to startling consequences and would eliminate the very concept of deemed fiction. 2. Here is a plaintiff/applicant who seeks interim injunction against the defendants restraining them from obstructing or creating any hindrance in construction work of Motel on National Highway No. 8 (in short NH-8) on the doctrine...
Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. Vs. the Commr. of Customs and Central Exci ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)107; 97(2002)DLT826; 2002(62)DRJ697; 2002(81)ECC678; 2002(143)ELT60(Del)
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioner is approaching this Court not because it is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 20th August, 1999 but because the Tribunal could not give the desired relief to the petitioner despite its clear findings in its favor.2. The petitioner imported one set of design workstation with flat bed scanner, floppy disc, etc. from M/s. Viable System Inc., USA. The breakup price shown in the invoice was US $ 22,500.00 for hardware and US $ 60,000.00 for software, which worked out at Rs. 7,16,974.00 for hardware and Rs. 19,11,930.00 for software. The officers of the Customs Department raided the premises of the importer. One of the documents seized was a proforma invoice dated 27.12.94. It showed a total price of US # 82,500.00 and discount of US $ 39,325.00. The breakup value of hardware and software was not separately given. The Commissioner of Customs by his order dated 31.5.1995 rejected the discount of US $ 39,325.00 and enhanced the value of the impo...
id-mohd. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)100; 2002CriLJ4171; 97(2002)DLT776; 2002(62)DRJ338
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Appellant seeks suspension of the sentenceinvoking Section 389 of the Code of CriminalProcedure. Needless to state that learned AdditionalSessions Judge held the appellant guilty for offencespunishable under Section 302/34 and 27 of the ArmsAct.2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief as alleged are that on 21st November, 1997 an information was received from public telephone at 9.40 am that the dead body of the young man is lying at Tuglakabad Extension opposite gali No. 13-B. This set the law into motion. The police found that a young man of about 25/26 years was lying in a pool of blood. A blood stained blade of khukhri was lying at a distance. There were no eye witness available at the spot. From the possession of the deceased one chit of Mangolia factory was recovered. On basis of that chit the owner of Mangolia factory Mr. Amet Mohd. and Master Abdul Sattar were interrogated. The said owner informed the police that three tailors namely Mohd. Islam, Raju ...
Shri G.C. Nautiyal and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)1040; 97(2002)DLT542; 2002(62)DRJ435; 2003(160)ELT141(Del)
Khan, (J) 1. Petitioners are officials of Excise Department and R-4 is a factory owner. Both sides had lodged complaints with R-3 who registered an FIR on R-4's complaint but failed to do so on petitioner's one. Petitioners have now filed this petition praying for a similar treatment.2. It all seems to have started when R-4's factory unit along with some other units was identified for evasion of central excise duty. Petitioners formed into a Preventive team to conduct its check/inspection. They claim that they equipped by proper authorisation in terms of their departmental circular dated 18.12.1992, entered R-4's factory premises and disclosed their identity by showing their identity cards but R-4 barged in and shouted at them and threatened to shot them. He refused to listen to them and instead made telephone calls to some police officials and other persons. Later police arrived on the scene, checked their identity cards, took them to Jahangir Puri Police Station and detained them the...
Shri Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)201; 2002(62)DRJ531; (2002)IIILLJ468Del
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the orders dated 24th November 1998 and 23rd September 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 1296/93 whereby and whereunder the Original Application as also the Review Application filed by the petitioner were dismissed. In its order dated 24th November 1998, the learned Tribunal noticed that the petitioner herein had not been present before it on the earlier occasions on 12th January 1994, 3rd February 1994, 9th March 1994, 27th August 1998, 3rd November 1998 and 17th November 1998 and, the learned Tribunal, in the aforementioned situation, went into the merit of the case and held:'3. We have perused the pleading and find that the applicant has not been able to rebut the charge of interpolation and forgery. The respondents have further stated that the applicant was proceeded against in accordance with D&A; Rules and several opportunities were provided to him to defend ...
Delhi Tamil Education Assn. Vs. Sri J. Samimalai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)330; 97(2002)DLT352; 2002(64)DRJ856
Khan, (J)1. Petitioner alleges that respondent had threatened its Advocates and had also lodged a complaint against one of them. Whether the alleged threat extended to an Advocate on phone amounted to a criminal contempt is the question.2. Petitioner society is running some seven schools in NCT Region. Respondent was its Secretary who is said to have been removed on 3.10.1999 resulting in some litigation between the parties. Petitioner has filed Suit No. 2301/01 against him and obtained an ex-parte restraint order on 15.10.1999. He had, in turn, sought vacation of this order and it was in or around this time that petitioner moved this contempt petition alleging that respondent had threatened its President Mr. Srinivasan, a Supreme Court lawyer and three other counsel M/s. Ravi, V. Sudeer and Senior Advocate Mr. Krishnamani on phone asking them to withdraw from the brief or face dire consequences. He had also scandalised the court by publicly declaring before students that petitioner ha...
Mr. Sudhir Chona Vs. Mrs. Shahnaz Husain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)102; 97(2002)DLT642; 2002(62)DRJ346
Khan, J. 1. A shop at 31-A Khan Market is at the root of controversy. Petitioner-landlord executed an agreement dated 13.3.1993 for letting out a portion of it to respondent. Later differences cropped up between them and respondent filed suit No. 1768/1993 for specific performance and for award of compensation of Rs. 9.5 lacs. Petitioner defended the suit and also set up a counter claim of Rs. 7.42 lacs against respondent. The suit is pending in this court and both parties have been ordered to maintain status quo in respect of suit property.2. Apart from the suit, parties have also taken recourse to other methods to show each other down by lodging rival complaints and other proceedings. Petitioner on his part has filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the respondent charging him of filing the suit on fabricated and false documents. Though all this is not relevant for our purpose but one of the acts attributed to respondent in this connection forms the basis of this cont...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »